Kōzen Hiroshi 興膳宏. "Bun shin chō ryū to Shutsu sanzō ki shū" 文心雕竜と出三蔵記集. In Chūgoku chūsei no shūkyō to bunka 中国中世の宗教と文化, edited by Fukunaga Mitsuji 福永光司, 127-238. Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo 京都大学人文科学研究所, 1982.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
As part of a longer and more complex examination of the relation between Liu Xie 劉勰 and his masterwork the Wen xin diao long 文心雕龍, and the CSZJJ, Kōzen argues that Liu Xie probably had a hand in authoring at least parts of CSZJJ itself. His argument focuses primarily on two sections of CSZJJ fascicle 1, namely, the "Preface" 序 to the entire work, and the essay on differences between languages and problems of translation entitled 胡漢譯經音義同異記. Of the Preface, Kōzen argues more specifically that it is possible to discern two different styles in different parts of the text, and that the first part (which features a number of special or even technical Buddhist terms) is more likely to be Sengyou's own work, while in the second (where this Buddhist colouring disappears), it is possible to clearly discern the presence of Liu Xie. The argument for Liu Xie's hand in the text is based primarily upon three main types of evidence. First, in the second part of the preface, Kōzen argues that in a short space, a number of relatively words and turns of phrase occur, which are shared with Wen xin diao long: 銓貫, 本源, 牽課, 沿/㳂(sic)波討源, 原始, 司南, 信史, 燕石不亂於楚玉, and 井識管窺 (the match in the last two turns of phrase is approximate rather than verbatim) (144-145). Second, in relation to both essays, Kōzen argues that the expository or argumentative machinery is similar to that characteristic of Wen xin diao long. Kōzen has in mind here particularly the application of numbered rubrics, and the use of rather strict formal parallelisms in the structuring (and prosody) of the text. Third, Kōzen examines the details of the exposition of linguistic differences in CSZJJ against the chapter on the same topic in Wen xin diao long, and holds that they have significant similarities (based in part upon ideas that he traces to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra). |
As part of a longer and more complex examination of the relation between Liu Xie 劉勰 and his masterwork the Wen xin diao long 文心雕龍, and the CSZJJ, Kozen argues that Liu Xie probably had a hand in authoring at least parts of CSZJJ itself. His argument focuses primarily on two sections of CSZJJ fascicle 1, namely, the "Preface" 序 to the entire work, and the essay on differences between languages and problems of translation entitled 胡漢譯經音義同異記. Of the Preface, Kozen argues more specifically that it is possible to discern two different styles in different parts of the text, and that the first part (which features a number of special or even technical Buddhist terms) is more likely to be Sengyou's own work, while in the second (where this Buddhist colouring disappears), it is possible to clearly discern the presence of Liu Xie. The argument for Liu Xie's hand in the text is based primarily upon three main types of evidence. First, in the second part of the preface, Kozen argues that in a short space, a number of relatively words and turns of phrase occur, which are shared with Wen xin diao long: 銓貫, 本源, 牽課, 沿/㳂(sic)波討源, 原始, 司南, 信史, 燕石不亂於楚玉, and 井識管窺 (the match in the last two turns of phrase is approximate rather than verbatim) (144-145). Second, in relation to both essays, Kozen argues that the expository or argumentative machinery is similar to that characteristic of Wen xin diao long. Kozen has in mind here particularly the application of numbered rubrics, and the use of rather strict formal parallelisms in the structuring (and prosody) of the text. Third, Kozen examines the details of the exposition of linguistic differences in CSZJJ against the chapter on the same topic in Wen xin diao long, and holds that they have significant similarities (based in part upon ideas that he traces to the Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra). Liu Xie 劉勰 Sengyou, 僧祐 T2145; 出三藏記集 |